Author
Topic: Orthodoxinfo.com (Read 16178 times)

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

It is a mixed bag. It has been awhile, but I recall learning about the history of that site. As I recall, it was begun by a non-canonical group who has since joined the Church. Some of the stuff I have read on there seemed to be from an Old Calendarist perspective.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

Yeah, thanks. Catholics can have such a hard time getting away from having an official view on everything, at least the big things like the baptism, the afterlife, and all that. I think that is why modernism hit the Catholic Church so much harder. It is so organized under the Pope. Whereas Orthodoxy, not having that clear cut unity under one man and something like the Vatican, was hit with modernism but not so clearly. Of course there is also the possibility of the Holy Spirit being involved, which it is if the Orthodox Church is God's Church. I am more than not convinced it is but since I like that I am taking it slow because there is a danger, especially with Catholics, of running from the problems in the Catholic Church to the Orthodox on an emotional level. And it rarely ends up good when one does that I have been told. I went to Catholicism emotionally and romantically but I was young so that's excused. I am 28 now, not 19 so I have some experience of life and am less governed by my emotions.

If there ever is another ecumenical council it would seem baptism and rebaptism should be addressed. After all I understand that is how an issue that is debated is suppose to be answered in the Church. The question is will there ever be such a council that can be agreed is ecumenical. One problem Catholics have, and I admit troubles me, is that the Orthodox are somewhat divided in doctrine. Forgive me if that sounds offensive--but that's how it appears sometimes. Sure they are unified in the liturgy and prayer but in doctrinal issues, like the nature of baptism, they seem divided, some insisting non-Orthodox always be baptized and others insisting they need not. Just stating how I, and other Catholics feel. Sometimes I do not know exactly how to respond to their accusations of the Orthodox Church tending to have national or local disagreements that divide it whereas the Roman Catholic Church is universal.

If there ever is another ecumenical council it would seem baptism and rebaptism should be addressed. After all I understand that is how an issue that is debated is suppose to be answered in the Church. The question is will there ever be such a council that can be agreed is ecumenical. One problem Catholics have, and I admit troubles me, is that the Orthodox are somewhat divided in doctrine. Forgive me if that sounds offensive--but that's how it appears sometimes. Sure they are unified in the liturgy and prayer but in doctrinal issues, like the nature of baptism, they seem divided, some insisting non-Orthodox always be baptized and others insisting they need not. Just stating how I, and other Catholics feel. Sometimes I do not know exactly how to respond to their accusations of the Orthodox Church tending to have national or local disagreements that divide it whereas the Roman Catholic Church is universal.

I would not say that there are many doctrinal divisions, but there are definitely differences in practice. Take the baptism thing for example. That varies significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To me, it isn't that big of a deal because if the Orthodox Church recognizes my baptism, it has the authority to do so regardless if I'm dunked, sprinkled, chrismated, are any other variation.

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

If there ever is another ecumenical council it would seem baptism and rebaptism should be addressed. After all I understand that is how an issue that is debated is suppose to be answered in the Church. The question is will there ever be such a council that can be agreed is ecumenical. One problem Catholics have, and I admit troubles me, is that the Orthodox are somewhat divided in doctrine. Forgive me if that sounds offensive--but that's how it appears sometimes. Sure they are unified in the liturgy and prayer but in doctrinal issues, like the nature of baptism, they seem divided, some insisting non-Orthodox always be baptized and others insisting they need not. Just stating how I, and other Catholics feel. Sometimes I do not know exactly how to respond to their accusations of the Orthodox Church tending to have national or local disagreements that divide it whereas the Roman Catholic Church is universal.

This makes us sound like Anglicans!

We are not divided on the nature of baptism.

We are divided on how to address what, if anything, happens in certain heterodox baptisms and how to ameliorate deficiencies in those baptisms. We do not agree on what happens outside the Church and how best to complete it. We certainly agree on what happens in the Church, which is what is important.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative partssome parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than Some of the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

Fixed this for you....it is not nearly as monolithic as your comments made it sound

Logged

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

The same one as Fr. Georges Florovsky.

Of course, as you would know, St. Cyprian denied the possibility of baptism outside of the Church. Do you believe then that the heterodox are within the Church?

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

The same one as Fr. Georges Florovsky.

Of course, as you would know, St. Cyprian denied the possibility of baptism outside of the Church. Do you believe then that the heterodox are within the Church?

I will follow the counsel of saints far wiser than I, and respond, "I do not know."

I know a sure way to be in the Church, however, and it is this path which I strive to follow.

Wonderful timing on this thread - thanks OP for asking. I had just bookmarked the site in question but not looked at it yet. I'm not sure if I would have realized it was a bit off in some things or not. I appreciate the warning. My priest also said to keep to established sites but only suggested ancient faith radio particularly, I think. Need to check my class notes. It's kept me busy enough.

I also did not know about Orthodox Research Institute or Fr. Ted's blog, so thank you for that info as well.

Logged

Aγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς

Let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

I won't argue with you here on who exactly is interpreting the "spirit" of the Fathers correctly; the OP can search for those other threads if he wants. If I appear to be too dogmatic on one side, I would caution against falling into an opposing dogmatism.

The principles as far as I know are that, following Apostolic Canon 46, there are no saving Mysteries outside the Church. What exactly that means, i.e. whether that means mysteries outside the Church are totally devoid of sanctifying grace, or that sanctifying grace cannot have a salvific effect outside the Church and the Orthodox faith, is a much-discussed topic and there is even disagreement among the True Orthodox on this matter (often reflecting the difference between the Greek and Russian theological traditions).

Historically, the Church has adopted both strict and lax positions with respect to those being received from outside the Church, sometimes utterly refusing to recognize any mysteries performed outside Her, and other times appearing to give some implicit recognition by not insisting on the repetition of those mysteries (Baptism and/or Chrismation). Some interpret the exercise of economy to mean that the Church recognizes heterodox mysteries as valid in some way, i.e. possessing sanctifying grace; others interpret it to mean that the Church merely recognizes the correct form, and is able to retroactively render the heterodox baptism valid and sanctifying through the act of chrismation or confession. The degree of strictness or economy usually reflects the pastoral needs of the day, i.e. whether the priority is bringing Catholics back into the Orthodox fold, as with the Russian Church as formerly Orthodox lands were recovered from Poland, or to sharply distinguish Orthodox from heterodox, as the Greek Church needed to do in the face of Papal attempts to create the Eastern Catholic churches.

Then there is the question of what counts as the correct "form" of Baptism. Since the universal traditional practice of Orthodoxy has been triple full immersion, we can conclude that this is the benchmark for correct practice. However, quite early on in the West the practice of sprinkling became common, and so the question arose of whether this sufficed as correct form; still, recognizing sprinkling clearly requires a greater degree of economy than recognizing full immersion.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

The same one as Fr. Georges Florovsky.

Of course, as you would know, St. Cyprian denied the possibility of baptism outside of the Church. Do you believe then that the heterodox are within the Church?

I will follow the counsel of saints far wiser than I, and respond, "I do not know."

I know a sure way to be in the Church, however, and it is this path which I strive to follow.

The rest, I leave to God.

You are trying to dodge a reasonable question. If you wish to appeal to the authority of St Cyprian, why do you suddenly ignore St Cyprian when he says clearly that there is no baptism outside the Church?

Also, which saints exactly said they "did not know" whether the heterodox were outside the Church?

The site has a few interesting articles but the overall attitude represented throughout is bizarre and distorted. I suspect that website is responsible for planting needless anxieties and weird ideas in many a convert.

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

The same one as Fr. Georges Florovsky.

Of course, as you would know, St. Cyprian denied the possibility of baptism outside of the Church. Do you believe then that the heterodox are within the Church?

I will follow the counsel of saints far wiser than I, and respond, "I do not know."

I know a sure way to be in the Church, however, and it is this path which I strive to follow.

The rest, I leave to God.

You are trying to dodge a reasonable question. If you wish to appeal to the authority of St Cyprian, why do you suddenly ignore St Cyprian when he says clearly that there is no baptism outside the Church?

Also, which saints exactly said they "did not know" whether the heterodox were outside the Church?

I do not ignore St. Cyprian. He is correct in what he says. See Fr. Florovsky.

I am speaking principally of the spirit of the words of St. Theophan and the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

The same one as Fr. Georges Florovsky.

Of course, as you would know, St. Cyprian denied the possibility of baptism outside of the Church. Do you believe then that the heterodox are within the Church?

I will follow the counsel of saints far wiser than I, and respond, "I do not know."

I know a sure way to be in the Church, however, and it is this path which I strive to follow.

The rest, I leave to God.

You are trying to dodge a reasonable question. If you wish to appeal to the authority of St Cyprian, why do you suddenly ignore St Cyprian when he says clearly that there is no baptism outside the Church?

Also, which saints exactly said they "did not know" whether the heterodox were outside the Church?

I do not ignore St. Cyprian. He is correct in what he says. See Fr. Florovsky.

I am speaking principally of the spirit of the words of St. Theophan.

Do you have references for Fr Florovsky and St Theophan? I'd be interested in reading them.

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere. The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course. The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils. It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky. See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic.

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

The same one as Fr. Georges Florovsky.

Of course, as you would know, St. Cyprian denied the possibility of baptism outside of the Church. Do you believe then that the heterodox are within the Church?

I will follow the counsel of saints far wiser than I, and respond, "I do not know."

I know a sure way to be in the Church, however, and it is this path which I strive to follow.

The rest, I leave to God.

You are trying to dodge a reasonable question. If you wish to appeal to the authority of St Cyprian, why do you suddenly ignore St Cyprian when he says clearly that there is no baptism outside the Church?

Also, which saints exactly said they "did not know" whether the heterodox were outside the Church?

I do not ignore St. Cyprian. He is correct in what he says. See Fr. Florovsky.

I am speaking principally of the spirit of the words of St. Theophan.

Do you have references for Fr Florovsky and St Theophan? I'd be interested in reading them.

Yes. I posted Fr. Florovsky here before. But you can find him on Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.

It seems that as to the website it is good for some things but bad for others. The best source is a priest but in the meantime I come here. I am not going back to the Orthodox parish for at least a month--just no way to get there. There is possibility of me getting my licence back my doctor said--maybe. I am hoping so. It would mean I could get to an Orthodox church more easily. He is planning on upping my anti-seizure medicine if the blood work comes back okay and prescribed me Ativan when I begin to have my episodes--"take after seizure to prevent cluster seizures." I usually have my partial seizure episodes in groups so he is hoping this will help. I am, too. Of course it helps to have a forum because even a holy priest does not want too many questions! I miss the church already--made it to vespers once and was in love. It was like heaven.

before you all fly back and forth quoting various sources at each other and all that stuff.....might want to have a look at -which- forum you are in and take that into account...

Also take into account that this subject has been debated quite recently on another board where debate is more welcome. Rather than rehash the debate here, it's better we take it to the thread where it's already been going on. Thanks.

before you all fly back and forth quoting various sources at each other and all that stuff.....might want to have a look at -which- forum you are in and take that into account...

Also take into account that this subject has been debated quite recently on another board where debate is more welcome. Rather than rehash the debate here, it's better we take it to the thread where it's already been going on. Thanks.

Yes, thanks for answering the question though about the website. But given I gave baptism as an example and even showed my problem with what the site said that disagreed with other things I suppose it was sure to go into a debate about baptism of non-Orthodox, etc.

Thank you all. (and I hope you don't mind me tacking this question on, since it's on the same topic - thought it might be helpful if anyone is looking stuff up someday to see them all in the same thread).

There's essentially nothing wrong with going to Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, and so on is there? I know the customs can vary a little, maybe the emphasis is slightly shifted and they might prefer different Saints over others, but essentially the faith is the same, isn't it?

Logged

Aγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς

Let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God

There's essentially nothing wrong with going to Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, and so on is there? I know the customs can vary a little, maybe the emphasis is slightly shifted and they might prefer different Saints over others, but essentially the faith is the same, isn't it?

Well, much of what you'll see on those websites will be fine, but occasionally there are pages or articles that don't reflect specific Church (e.g. Greek or Antiochian) or universal Church teaching but rather the views of an individual writer or something like that.

Thank you all. (and I hope you don't mind me tacking this question on, since it's on the same topic - thought it might be helpful if anyone is looking stuff up someday to see them all in the same thread).

There's essentially nothing wrong with going to Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, and so on is there? I know the customs can vary a little, maybe the emphasis is slightly shifted and they might prefer different Saints over others, but essentially the faith is the same, isn't it?

We have the same faith. If in North America just make sure the parish is listed in the directory on www.assemblyofbishops.org and you'll be sure it is in communion with Orthodoxy.

I really like it, I just wish it would be a bit more comprehensive than regular old wiki on Orthodox topics. But I find wikis quite helpful in general for looking up info quickly, and also getting 'leads' to more (or better) information.

What we really need is goaskyourpriest.net, which would merely be a page that says: "Why are you looking for answers among anonymous people on the internet? Go ask your priest!" Rival sites would be about priests who never return calls/emails and priests who give horrible advice.

I really like it, I just wish it would be a bit more comprehensive than regular old wiki on Orthodox topics. But I find wikis quite helpful in general for looking up info quickly, and also getting 'leads' to more (or better) information.

Yeah it would be nice if it was more compresehensive like e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia. I find the CE to have some very useful stuff.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 12:10:25 AM by Laird »

Logged

"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk